Candidate Conservation | The Candidate Conservation Process

1. Our biologists assess the status of species that may be declining, using information gathered from multiple sources, and decide whether a species meets the definition of candidate (see below).

2. The public may petition us to list a species, subspecies, or a population of a species. Learn more information about the petition process.

During our review of the petition, we may make a finding that listing the species under the ESA is warranted but precluded by higher priority work within the listing program; in this case the species is added to the candidate list and their status is annually reviewed as described below.

Through our candidate assessment process, we identify species for which the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that a proposal for listing is appropriate, using the listing factors under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These listing factors include:

the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;

other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence.

Also, we re-assess species previously identified as candidates to update their status and determine if they can be removed from the candidate list or if their listing priority should change.

The species assessment document (including citations of the scientific literature and other sources of information), prepared by the Candidate Conservation staff, is provided to the Service Director, who makes the final decision as to whether a species should be elevated or removed from candidate status or have its listing priority number changed.

The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) was listed as a candidate species in 2006. By 2015, in response to positive conservation efforts from the Service and our partners, we determined to remove the New England cottontail from ESA protection.

Photo credit:Tom Barnes/USFWS.

We gather species information from many sources including State fish and wildlife agencies, other federal agencies, universities, and tribes. One chief source of information is the network of State Natural Heritage Programs databases, which track species that are already imperiled, and those that are declining or at-risk (NatureServe's Explorer website provides online access to some of this data). The recently completed State Wildlife Action Plans are another source of information of wildlife species of greatest conservation concern to states and territories.

Identification of candidate species and the factors influencing their status, and the assignment of listing priority numbers, assists us and our partners in identifying and prioritizing conservation efforts that are most likely to be effective in removing the need for listing. We assign a listing priority number to a species based on evaluating the magnitude and immediacy of threats to it, as well as its taxonomic distinctiveness. This number is a key factor in the Service's decisions about proceeding with a formal proposal to list a species (see 1983 published guidance on listing priority numbers). Listing priority numbers range from one to 12; a species with a listing priority of one would have the highest priority for listing.

Conducting assessments and making decisions to elevate or remove species from candidate status requires careful analysis and documentation of the best available scientific information regarding a species and factors influencing its status, as well as the known effects of ongoing conservation efforts.

Brian Lang of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (left) and Dr. David Berg of the University of Miami-Ohio (right) collect three candidate species: Phantom springsnail, Phantom Cave snail, and diminutive amphipod, from Phantom Lake Spring in west Texas.

Photo credit: Nathan Allen / USFWS

We evaluate how conservation efforts have removed or reduced threats to the species. At the time we make our decision on whether to elevate a species to candidate status, or remove a species from candidate status, some of these conservation efforts may have been planned but not yet implemented, or have been implemented but not yet demonstrated whether they are effective in reducing or removing threats to a species. We evaluate some efforts using our Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) 2003[109KB] – a joint policy with the Natinoal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – as described in this news release. PECE was developed to provide a set of consistent standards for evaluating individual conservation efforts to identify those for which there is a high level of certainty of implementation and effectiveness in removing threats to a species.

The CNOR provides an opportunity to submit information or comments on current candidate species or on species that the Service should assess to determine if they should become a candidate species. To submit information or comments on a species, contact the regional office that has the lead for the species. This information is found by clicking on the species in the candidate list.

NMFS's Office of Protected Resources (part of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which has jurisdiction over most marine species, maintains a list of "species of concern". While similar to our candidate species in that NMFS evaluates these species for possible listing under the ESA, these species are not as far along in the listing process since more information is needed before they can be proposed for listing. NMFS also maintains a list of candidate species that is similar to ours.